Talk:Lincoln cent

Resources/Ideas for Expansion

• I think it's quite important that the Lincoln cent was the first coin to depict a real person. See "Now if Only We Could Mint Lincoln Himself". There's lots of other good stuff in the same article.
• There's a lot of good material in David Lange's The Complete Guide to Lincoln Cents much of which is available in a Google preview. Much is on collecting, but there's considerable history.
• According to the American Numismatic Society, the front of the Lincoln penny is the most reproduced piece of art in the world Lincoln cent spends 100 years in circulation. Also, the same article also reports that 450 billion have been minted (as of 2009). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Nils (talk • contribs) 03:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

On the first point, you mean first circulating coin.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

On the first point, you mean first American circulating coin. The first coin depicting a "real person" may have been struck by the Romans more then 2000 years ago, but quite possibly dates from prior to that -- one of the Greek states maybe? Maybe someone who specializes in ancient coins can comment further.

BTW, I live in the US and don't recall seeing any of those four 2009 commemorative cents in circulation to this day. The commemorative Jefferson/Lewis & Clark Expedition nickles were in circulation. So were the quarters issued for each of the 50 states and the various territories. Not so the 2009 Lincoln commemorative cents. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC))

I've seen a few of them around, but they don't seem to have circulated the way the state quarters or the Jefferson nickels have. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably has to do with how many coins the banks were drawing from the Federal Reserve, sometimes it is high, sometimes they sit in storage. I haven't seen a National Parks quarter outside a collector's set yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I have likewise seen a few National Parks quarters. But it was much easier to acquire the state quarters somehow. Hard telling what's going on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

So, is anybody objecting to the article noting that this was the first circulating U.S. coin to depict an actual person? 184.36.90.170 (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No, if you are going to source it to the Times article, it seems appropriate. The conversation has gotten rather sidetracked with the Greek thing, so I wasn't sure we had resolved it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Your citation, with its backstory on the history of U.S. coinage, appears to be a reasonable reference. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I put it through again. 184.36.90.170 (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

What about the 1863 Washington 2-cent piece? My only source on this is Wikipedia, but it looks like that was regularly circulating for several years. I think someone should look into this to see if the Times was mistaken. 128.33.75.243 (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I wrote that article too, and that was a pattern. It was never approved by the Mint Director (Pollock) or the Secretary of the Treasury (Chase). Under the Act of May 22, 1864, that was required. If some circulated, it wasn't authorized.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Brenner's Initials

According to the New York Times, Lincoln cents without the initials entered production on August 13, which is later than indicated in the article. See Coining Lincoln Cents. Sir Nils (talk) 04:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Bowers says that Landis sent Leach 100 of them on August 12, and there is a section heading, "August 12, 1909". Given that contemporary newspaper accounts can often be wrong, I'm inclined not to change the date. I could put the Times in a footnote. Probably in the morning.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Missing info

I find it strange that this article can make featured article status without ever even mentioning, neither in the infobox which includes the composition change to mostly zinc, nor in the text, a 19.6% reduction in weight from 0.1 oz t before the 1982 change.

Well, not all that strange—I guess it just confirms what I've known for a long time about the innumeracy of the denizens of the featured article process. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Since what you have proposed is a relatively simple and noncontroversial change, you might do well to find a source on it and just implement it in the article. Or get involved as a reviewer. It's your encyclopedia too you know!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No section for notable pennies?

I think a section that mentions the most notable penny rarities (like the 1970 S small date and 1972 double die) would benefit this article. The 1955 double die is mentioned briefly already. I believe a large portion of readers of this article are likely to be beginner numismatists so it seems a very appropriate addition. As a featured article, it seems odd to me that it's not already part of the article. Perhaps it once was? Jason Quinn (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, and I would encourage you to add such a section. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps put a section at the foot of the article, sort of a list, and a brief description? All sourced, of course. Several of them I think are already their own article, and we should point the reader there for in depth info.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 17:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• A note I learned today: there's a "1909 VDB" cent on the Mars Science Laboratory (it's part of the Mars Hand Lens Imager photo calibration target, and can be seen on that page). Perhaps too trivial to include, but thought I'd note it here.... Andrew Gray (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

1982 D small date copper penny's

What would this penny be worth to a collector? Davidhendricks (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

We're not coin experts, just trying to provide a general-knowledge level article. I would advise, if you are not minded to take it to a coin dealer, asking the American Numismatic Association, which often receives such queries. Their website is money.org --Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that even those of us who are coin experts couldn't possible give you an answer without having the coin in hand to examine. There's a lot that goes into determining what a particular coin is worth, and the date and variety is only part of it. It's like saying "I have a 1966 Mustang-what is it worth?" Whether it's a concourse-quality car or if the rust is the only thing holding it together (among other things) makes a huge difference in the answer.Almostfm (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Source citations missing

Shouldn't there be citations documenting the source for the data in the infobox at the beginning of the article? I'm not questioning the correctness of that data, but we ought to demonstrate where it came from. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 11:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think the whole thing could be sourced by citing to the Lincoln cent pages in the latest Red Book. I'll put it on my "to-do" list.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 10:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Breaks sourcing

@Wehwalt:: Are you saying the source for "this was prompted by a shortage of cents on the island." is "Gilkes, Paul (February 15, 2010). "Mint Returns to 1909 Galvano for Portrait". Coin World. 51 (2601): 1, 24. "? User-duck (talk) 10:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

You had material from two different sources mixed together as a result of your edit. I try to keep tabs on that sort of thing. Just add an extra ref tag.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Wehwalt:, thanks for the correction. I never thought the reference to the Feb. 15 article applied to the previous sentence. Seemed the Feb. 8 article was the more likely source. I eventually found the original reference and where the additional sentence was added. I have never seen a reference for a sentence and a half. (The short answer to my question was "yes", I would of corrected the issue.) User-duck (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Brass not Bronze

Bronze Lincoln cents (95% copper 5% tin and zinc) were minted from 1909 to 1941 and 1946 to 1961. Brass Lincoln cents (95% copper 5% Zinc) were minted in 1942, 1944-1945, and 1962-1982. Its a bit confusing I know, but things from World War II to rising tin prices will do that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

It's explained in the article, I think. "Brass" and "Bronze" are loose terms in this context.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

It could be, but this is what is present in all of the numismatic books I have with the date 1961. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Tone and style, re WP:WBA, WP:TONE etc

I came to this trying to find a short and sweet answer to the question "what is a wheat penny"? I should have just gone to Merriam-Webster: "a U.S. one cent coin that has an image of Abraham Lincoln on the obverse and two stalks of wheat on the reverse and that was issued from 1909 to 1958". WP:OBVIOUS officially applies to the first sentence of an article, making sure we state immediately what the thing is. But a good summary is just as necessary in article sections, especially long ones like Lincoln cent#Wheat cent (1909–1958). Good style would be to say up front, at the top of the section, in simple, boring words, what a wheat penny is.

I think when this was made an FA back in 2010 the guidelines for tone and style were a little looser. This article has quite a few instances of colloquialisms like "The coin has seen several reverse, or tails, designs", "In 1917, a year which saw Barber's death..." and "The recession year of 1922 saw a lower-than-usual..." Coins and years can't see things. It's a subtle form of passive voice and agency avoidance, where it elides who did what. The coin didn't "see" several designs. The Treasury made several obverse designs. The year 1917 didn't see Barber die. Barber died in 1917. In 1922, commerce demanded fewer of the coins, which I think it means to say was due to the recession. One of the problems with "The recession year of 1922 saw a lower-than-usual demand for coins in commerce, and few cents were coined" is that it is very coy about whether it's fact or speculation that the recession caused lower demand, and who exactly expressed that demand: banks? consumers? Businesses? We are left to assume that somebody -- the Treasury? -- surmised the demand was lower and responded by minting fewer coins. So many unnecessary questions raised for no good reason except someone chose a stilted, ornate style instead of a more straightforward, unspectacular sentence: "X did Y to Z because Foo". Subject verb object [reasons].

There's a lot of this passive voice elsewhere, again skirting agency. Who did it? "congressional approval expired, there was no interest in replacing..." and " an idea that had been seen as too monarchical in the past" and ""Brenner's initials (VDB), on the reverse at its base, were deemed too prominent..." Treasury Secretary Franklin MacVeagh issued the order. So he's the one who deemed them too prominent. It's easy to just say so.

This kind of word choice is pompous, and ridiculous: "Brenner's initials, which he had placed at the base of the reverse, immediately became a source of controversy—on the afternoon of August 2, The Washington Star queried asked the Treasury as to about the initials. Quotes appeared in the papers from (possibly invented opinion-inline"") unnamed Treasury officials, opining sayingthat the coins were illegal because of the initials, which were seen as advertising" Why not use plain English: "Brenner put his initials at the base of the reverse, prompting newspapers to question the Treasury's decision. Anonymous Treasury officials told the papers the initials could be illegal advertising." It doesn't pop, but we shouldn't be attempting to make bits of material "pop". Similarly, the breathless tone of "was intense public interest" "considerable public excitement" is unencyclopedic. It also leaves out information I'd like to know: how does the public get intensely excited about pennies? Were there vast crowds outside banks? Riots? Was it like Beetlemania? We are later told there was price speculation. Do they mean in some coin collector market? Or elsewhere? The problem with passive voice is not really that it's boring. The problem is that it leaves the reader wondering.

I don't this article will remain an FA without a rewrite for a more down-to-earth, less colloquial, less buzzy style. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. I've added something about wheat penny, though penny is of course a colloquialism. I will look at the other points you make, though many of them are due to the limitations of the sources; many Mint records were destroyed in the 1970s, so sometimes the passive voice has to stretch.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• US One Cent Rev.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Birth and Early Childhood in Kentucky Reverse.jpg
• Presidency in DC Reverse.jpg
• Professional Life in Illinois Reverse.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

What is the authority for the use of zinc in 1982?

The section Changes in composition implies the authority was Public Law 93–441, passed in 1974, which gave the Secretary of the Treasury the ability to change composition as he saw appropriate ... however paragraph (c) (2) of the act provided that this authority expired Dec. 31, 1977. Clearly there must have been a later act passed, probably tacked on to some appropriation bill, as I cannot seem to find a stand alone bill that would have granted this authority. 2001:558:6017:107:8D43:BEE6:70A4:BA3C (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I will research the matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, it's like this. Treasury authority for section (c) of the act did expire on December 31, 1977. However, in making the 1982 change, the Treasury acted under section (b), which reads, "Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary of the Treasury such action is necessary to assure an adequate supply of coins to meet the national needs, he may prescribe such composition of copper and zinc in the alloy of the one-cent piece as he may deem appropriate. Such one-cent pieces shall have such weight as may be prescribed by the Secretary." There is no expiration date for section (b). That's what he did, it went from 99+ percent copper and the rest zinc to 97+ percent zinc, which is a bit extreme, and the copper industry sued about it, but apparently they did not win. So the phrasing is accurate. Thanks for an interesting question which just occupied me for an hour or so. I've been reading through the House subcommittee hearings transcript from 3/31/81, and from the discussion therein it's clear they were relying on the 1974 act.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the research. It turns out the wording that seems to have escaped both of us is "pursuant to this subsection" ... the original text of the section being converted into subsection (a), the text used being subsection (b) and the text with the expiration provision being subsection (c). The formatting of the text is a little sloppy and the wording a bit obtuse, but it all hinges on the word subsection. I don't think anyone anticipated the act being used in the way it was, and at such a late date from its passing, but many times the law does hinge on such technicalities. Thanks again for looking into this. 2001:558:6017:107:8D43:BEE6:70A4:BA3C (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)